From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10613: Please consider this report again Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:05:06 +0200 Message-ID: <83606zy01q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ehum32xg.fsf@sc3d.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1518627888 2054 195.159.176.226 (14 Feb 2018 17:04:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10613@debbugs.gnu.org To: Reuben Thomas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 14 18:04:43 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Tc-0006qi-Qj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:04:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40525 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Ve-000690-G1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60551) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0VT-000647-UP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0VP-0005NO-1C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35187) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0VO-0005N6-Rw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em0VO-00023y-Hw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:06:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10613 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 10613-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10613.15186279257888 (code B ref 10613); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:06:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10613) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2018 17:05:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43084 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Um-00023A-Rf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:05:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41113) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Ul-00022x-7A for 10613@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:05:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Ub-0004u9-1v for 10613@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:05:17 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40311) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Ua-0004tr-U5; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:05:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1234 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1em0Ua-0007hs-7Y; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:05:12 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Reuben Thomas on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:19:04 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:143276 Archived-At: > From: Reuben Thomas > Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:19:04 +0000 > > But I think the report remains valid: suspending Emacs is not a movement, not an editing command, so why > should it affect the behaviour of the next kill? > > Consider: if I suspend the computer on which I am running Emacs, then it does not affect the behaviour of > Emacs in any way (or shouldn't!). When I resume, Emacs will behave exactly as if nothing had happened in > the interim (other than time having passed). > > So from Emacs's perspective, why should "suspend-emacs" behave differently? There's any number of Emacs commands that are neither movement nor editing. For example, iconify-frame. It might be a useful feature to not interrupt a series of kills across these commands, but that's not how this feature was programmed: it specifically looks at the last command, and makes no exceptions. So this is not a bug, it's a request for a new feature.